You must log in or register to comment.
Gaiman didn’t believe in foreplay or lubrication, Stout tells me, which could make sex particularly painful. There was no “safe word”, nor “aftercare” or “limits”.
Fuck
Wow that was quite a read.
Absolutely brutish for Gaiman and Palmer to take advantage of vulnerable people like that.
Disgusting.
This is why consent, autonomy and boundaries should be the core of kink (and relationships or intimacy in general) and nothing should be able to supercede them and anybody involved should uphold these things.
In other words, have some control (of yoursel{f/ves}) but don’t try to control others in ways they haven’t explicitly agreed to and even then they should be able to exit any such agreements at any time without punishment.
If you didn’t twig that something was up when he had a writer lock a Muse in a rape room in Sandman I don’t know what to tell you.
Like, it’s not proof or anything, but anyone that doesn’t at least ask themselves some questions after that is simply not sufficiently skeptical of people.
What?? Are you saying a writer who writes about crazy shit is guilty of doing or wanting to do those crazy things?
If that’s what you’re saying, that is absolutely insane.
How sad would the world be if writers couldn’t put down whatever comes up in their minds. How boring and stilted every book would be if writers had to constantly worry about what people would think about their writing.
Of course they can and should write whatever inspires them, but ever since Louis CK, it makes me wonder if they’re writing about feelings they struggle with.
Thanks for proving me right again, I don’t get tired of it.
A guy rode a dragon.
Only the mind of an actual dragon rider could write that sentence.
You don’t even know what my user name is, maybe stay out of discussions that require reading comprehension.
I imagined that the wyvern was a dragon but the precise etymology is dubious at best, as some traditions would call it a drake or a wyrm.
Which are all dragons so it’s not vague at all. If you weren’t confusing me with that Drag guy based on your sentence choice I’ll retract my comment.
What are you talking about? I’m refuting your assertion by providing a simple example. Look I understand the sentiment that only a deranged mind could create certain types of art, but your example is very flimsy. I interpreted his muse story to be like folklore; tragic and cautionary.
Sometimes the catgirl is just a catgirl… and sometimes we get this weeks episode of the authors thinly veiled fetish.
From my own life: I though Lovecraft was somewhat racist when I read his works, but figured it was a times thing, and maybe a bit him… then I read about his personal life and his cats name and was like, “oh ok thats my b there.”
Lovecraft was a flaming racist even by the standards of the time, but it doesn’t seem to have come out of malice.
Lovecraft was terrified of anything that was slightly different from what he was, not just race, but hometown, school you went to, social status, whatnot. It’s so extreme it really can’t be explained with ideology or psychology, something must’ve been up with him in the biological sense, like genetically shot amygdala. It’s frankly a miracle the man was functional enough to write stories but that primordial terror he felt about just about anything other is also why his stories are so good. He knows what he’s talking about.
This is a very lukewarm defense, but this subject is something of a trope that shows up in various artists’ works. On the top of my head, I can say that it is a subject in a short story by Yoshihiro Tatsumi, as well as in Osamu Tezuka’s “Ayako”, both published way before Gaiman’s “Sandman” story. So I personally do not attribute too much importance to his story. His actions speak for themselves.
Aside from it being kinda tropey, can’t really say that every author is “practicing what they preach” so to speak. Stephen King had a child orgy scene in “It”, and lord knows all the other wacky shit he’s written about in the other 50+ books he’s put out in his career and he’s an entirely normal well adjusted dude from what I’ve seen. Similarly, Junji Ito is a buttercup IRL but reading some of his stuff you’d think he was a serial killer, or at least someone who should be heavily medicated.
Stephen King is most certainly not a normal well adjusted dude. He has seemingly achieved this through great personal hardship. At one point he probably did more drugs in a month than I have in my entire life, and I love drugs.
But yeah that fucked up bastard can write a child orgy scene without ever wanting to harm children.
Edit- King has had to take over production on at least one if not more movies because the drugs were flying so hard. And he was a drug addict himself at the time! He’s amazing.
Did you check with their girlfriends?
Steven King has been married to his wife since 1971.
I dunno, I don’t think stories are reflective of the artist’s true beliefs necessarily, whether beliefs we agree or disagree with.
The problem is that most people don’t think about these things because they are unthinkable and go against their nature, and many people’s inherent state is to assume the best of people because if they didn’t nothing would get done that benefitted anybody.
It doesn’t have anything to do with his beliefs, it has to do with writers and their habit of barely disguising their fetishes.
Okay, but there’s nothing inherently wrong with fetishes or kinks as long as they’re consented to. I don’t think putting them in a story is necessarily wrong or indicative of any larger problem with a person necessarily, only if they then do them non consensually in real life is it a problem.
Yeah, which is why I’m not arguing that he should have been arrested as soon as he wrote it lol, just that when a powerful dude is outing his rape fetish and linking it to his artistic inspiration you have ask yourself some questions! And the women in his life if you can.
Archived link you posted says “not found (yet?)”
Strange. It worked previously, but I changed the link now and hopefully it works.
